There are large collections of drawbacks; books have been written about it. The two I can remember the name of are “Against Intellectual Monopoly” (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...) and “The Case for Copyright Reform” (http://www.copyrightreform.eu/).

I would rather not argue specifics, but instead get you and people in general to understand what the argument is, and to get people to honestly investigate whether the cost is worth the drawbacks.

I called your reply “theoretical” because it talked about principles, not about what society would gain or lose with any available options, without which no cost-benefit analysis can be made. Are you wedded to the idea that the principle should outweigh all downsides in this case? How much would you be willing for this principle to cost society?

Have you not considered the possibility that many people here actually do already understand what the argument is, and have already investigated the costs and drawbacks for themselves?

If so, it seems as though you're simply hiding a position that you're not willing to defend.

I sincerely doubt they have done so with the same thoroughness as in the references I gave. Anyway, the original question (which started this thread) was by cscurmudgeon: “I am curious. Can you be more specific? If I am making my living writing software, and if you buy a copy of it and make it available to potential customers, why is it immoral to ask you not to do so?” I was not, I think, disingenuous in laying out the argument for people who, similarly to cscurmudgeon, had not grasped the argument for the other side.